| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 9277
|
|
|
Post subject: for your feedback and your review: US Navy (A to C)
|
 |
|
[HIT REFRESH FIRST to make sure you see the latest]
Forumini Navies Project
This will be a long series of threads to discuss the stats of as many ships as possible from world war 2. You can submit your own cards in here for review too. I will produce all cards in my template, so that they will look consistent, but the stats and S.A.s can be chosen by everyone here. The main template is the one I've already sent to many of you, with the new forumini Logo that EvilKobra made for the project.
Hopefully, we'll soon have an almost complete database of the World War 2 naval units, that we can play with for historical scenarios and online tournaments.
We use as base the official WoTC cards, except when they have glaring mistakes (e.g. Wildcat). The costs depends also on the year of appearance. Something that would cost 7 pts if it appeared first in 1939, it would cost 5 pts if it appeared first in 1943 (that's the famous italian-american torpedo boat peudo-"paradox"  .
When we consider the cards to have been sufficiently reviewed and corrected, I'll post them as reviewed units in the corresponding stickies of this subforum and they will be available for online games here.
Let's start with the draft version of some american ships (in reduced card size). Your comments will be greatly appreciated.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today).
Last edited by NeuralDream on Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:48 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
 Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:21 am |
|
|
Posts: 9277
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
  
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today).
Last edited by NeuralDream on Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:26 pm; edited 8 times in total |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:28 am |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
AAAAAAAUGHHHHHH!!!!!!!
LOTS OF AMERICANS!!!!!!
Seriously, though, this will be a great thing for the WaS world.
The only thing that I can think of / remember is that the Canberra was hit by an air-dropped torpedo and promptly blew up. Maybe she should have an SA like this:
Vulnerable to Torpedoes: If 2 6's are rolled during a torpedo attack on this unit, place a face up destroyed counter on it immediately.
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:53 am |
|
|
Straight-Shooter
Posts: 2067
|
|
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:37 am |
|
|
Posts: 9277
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jameson wrote: | | Very nice. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that the ship was spelled Topeka, like the city. |
Nice catch. Corrected in my pc.
| Aquarius wrote: | AAAAAAAUGHHHHHH!!!!!!!
LOTS OF AMERICANS!!!!!!
|
That's only one third of the US cards I've made .
| Quote: |
Seriously, though, this will be a great thing for the WaS world.
|
Which is why we must all try to review them and make sure they are good for our online matches.
| Quote: |
The only thing that I can think of / remember is that the Canberra was hit by an air-dropped torpedo and promptly blew up. Maybe she should have an SA like this:
Vulnerable to Torpedoes: If 2 6's are rolled during a torpedo attack on this unit, place a face up destroyed counter on it immediately. |
If that was because of a fundamental flaw of the design (like The Hood), then it must be a S.A. for all the ships of her class, but I admit I don't know that much about the design of this class.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:07 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: for your feedback and your review: US Navy (A to C)
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | We make only one card for each ship. The one that represents its specs when it first entered the war. |
Why? Given the fairly massive refits some ships received during the war, this is inevitably going to lead to a lot of ships that don't represent their late war states very well. |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:03 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I think the Clevelands need either the Rapid Fire SA or better main gunnery stats. As it is, they're barely better than the Glorie, despite having a 12 gun main battery versus the Glorie's 9. |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:07 pm |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: |
| Aquarius wrote: |
The only thing that I can think of / remember is that the Canberra was hit by an air-dropped torpedo and promptly blew up. Maybe she should have an SA like this:
Vulnerable to Torpedoes: If 2 6's are rolled during a torpedo attack on this unit, place a face up destroyed counter on it immediately. |
If that was because of a fundamental flaw of the design (like The Hood), then it must be a S.A. for all the ships of her class, but I admit I don't know that much about the design of this class. |
There was a big debate about this on the old boards about if the Baltimore class should have torpedo defense or not. I think it might make an interesting SA for this ship only. Maybe reduce the cost one or two points to compensate...
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| The Baltimore class Canberra was named after the Australian cruiser that was sunk. The USS Canberra survived the war and was converted to a single ended guided missle cruiser, in the 1950's. In fact, no Baltimore class cruisers were lost in WW2. I am not sure that any Baltimore's ever took a torpedo hit. |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:39 pm |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
That's weird. Then one of the debaters must have had his facts wrong.
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:48 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9277
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: for your feedback and your review: US Navy (A to C)
|
|
|
| Blackeagle wrote: | | NeuralDream wrote: | | We make only one card for each ship. The one that represents its specs when it first entered the war. |
Why? Given the fairly massive refits some ships received during the war, this is inevitably going to lead to a lot of ships that don't represent their late war states very well. |
I'm thinking of making the equipment improvements as separate add-on cards that will be bought separately. For example, +1 AA at a cost of 2 per ship.
I suggested that we start with only the early-war cards, and we can think about adding the late-war ones in a more elegant manner, instead of just making many cards for each ship. I think the add-on cards is a neat idea. If, for example, you want the late-war ship for a (late-war obviously) scenario then you declare in the scenario's settings that you use the card of the ship with the add-on for AA that it historically had.
| Blackeagle wrote: | | I think the Clevelands need either the Rapid Fire SA or better main gunnery stats. As it is, they're barely better than the Glorie, despite having a 12 gun main battery versus the Glorie's 9. |
You are right. I don't know why I did that. The Clevelands should have 9/9/8/7. Right?
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:50 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: for your feedback and your review: US Navy (A to C)
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | I'm thinking of making the equipment improvements as separate add-on cards that will be bought separately. For example, +1 AA at a cost of 2 per ship. |
I can foresee some problems with this. Do we really want an Atlanta with two AA 9 attacks or an Iowa with AA 10? Since some ship's AA rating increased by two points, how many increases in AA are we going to allow?
| NeuralDream wrote: | | I suggested that we start with only the early-war cards, and we can think about adding the late-war ones in a more elegant manner, instead of just making many cards for each ship. If, for example, you want the late-war ship for a (late-war obviously) scenario then you declare in the scenario's settings that you use the card of the ship with the add-on for AA that it historically had. |
I think doing separate cards for appropriate years is considerably more elegant than add-on cards. If we're going to be figuring out what the historical changes are anyway, we might as well just do it once and create a card for it rather than having to deal with it for each scenario. |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:05 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: for your feedback and your review: US Navy (A to C)
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | You are right. I don't know why I did that. The Clevelands should have 9/9/8/7. Right? |
9/9/8/7 would make them better than Boise (9/8/8/7). WotC really didn't leave much space between the 8-9 gun cruisers and the 15 gun Boise. I'd suggest either making them the same as Boise, but without the Rapid Fire SA, or keeping them at 8/8/7/6 and giving them Rapid Fire. |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:10 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9277
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: for your feedback and your review: US Navy (A to C)
|
|
|
| Blackeagle wrote: | | I think doing separate cards for appropriate years is considerably more elegant than add-on cards. If we're going to be figuring out what the historical changes are anyway, we might as well just do it once and create a card for it rather than having to deal with it for each scenario. |
OK. Can you submit here the cards for the upgraded ships (or classes) that have appeared up to now in this thread (in the small photobucket size (300something)? I believe you've done the ones you're referring to. I'll then copy them for the final, reviewed version, which will include EvilKobra's new logo. Is that ok?
| Blackeagle wrote: | | .. or keeping them at 8/8/7/6 and giving them Rapid Fire. |
I prefer this one. What do you think?
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:10 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Do the Alaskas only have Torpedo defense because the Baltimores do? This would make them the only BC's (okay, I know they're CB's) in the game with that SA. If they have some sort of system then I guess that's ok.
_________________
 |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:21 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9277
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| swarbs wrote: | | Do the Alaskas only have Torpedo defense because the Baltimores do? This would make them the only BC's (okay, I know they're CB's) in the game with that SA. If they have some sort of system then I guess that's ok. |
It didn't. It's a mistake left from using the Baltimore card as the basis for this one.
I'll correct that too. Alaskas didn't have proper torpedo defence.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:27 pm |
|
|
Moderator
Posts: 938
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| USS Canberra was hit by an aerial torpedo, but she survived despite being crippled. She and the Cleveland-class Houston formed "CripDiv 1" during Halsey's raids on Formosa. There's nothing special for the Baltimores regarding torpedo defense. Like most other US cruisers, they had machinery dispersal, but even that didn't help the ships of CripDiv 1--hence the name. |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:45 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9277
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I have no problem to remove the torpedo defence from all baltimores and decrease their cost by 2-3. But this is an important change, and I would like the opinion of everyone.
It is true that they had nothing special, just like the Alaskas. I will remove this S.A. if you tell me that you have no game play problem with this. I expect you won't, because the Americans already have enough battleships , but I can't do it just like that without it being the consensus.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:48 pm |
|
|
Resident U-Head
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I have no problem with this.
_________________
  |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:56 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: for your feedback and your review: US Navy (A to C)
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | OK. Can you submit here the cards for the upgraded ships (or classes) that have appeared up to now in this thread (in the small photobucket size (300something)? I believe you've done the ones you're referring to. I'll then copy them for the final, reviewed version, which will include EvilKobra's new logo. Is that ok? |
I haven't done any updated cards for the classes you've posted so far, just the old battleships (which are probably the ones that need multiple cards the most). I'd be happy to donate those to the project though.
Of the ships you've posted so far, I think the Alaskas, Atlantas, Clevelands and Baltimores can probably be represented by one card for the entire war. The commissioned late enough that they had fairly comprehensive AA batteries upon completion. The enhancements probably wouldn't be enough to change their stats in WaS terms (though I still think the Baltimores should be AA 7).
The Brooklyn class should probably start the war with AA 5. At the time of Pearl Harbor their AA armament was limited to eight 5"/38s and eight .50s (except for Helena which also had two quad 1.1 inch and two 3" guns). From what I can find, they all had enough light AA to justify AA 6 by 1943.
The other class you've posted that changed substantially during the war was the Benson class. Indeed, they weren't even all built to the same standard: early ships had five 5 inch guns and ten torpedo tubes, while later ships completed with only four guns and half the torpedo battery in favor of more ASW and light AA armament as the 'fleet destroyer' role passed to the Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing classes.
I gave the original configuration 2/2/-/- torpedos since they carried the same ten tube broadside as the Fletchers. The main gunnery attack is 5/5/4/- because Richard mentioned on the other boards that he underestimated the Fletcher's gunnery rating because he didn't take into account the very high rate of fire of the 5"/38 base ring mount. In general I'd give the 5 gun destroyers with base ring mounts 5/5/4/-. Ships with fewer guns or with some of their guns on pedestal mounts get 4/4/3/- (the six gun destroyers of the Sumner and Gearing classes would also get 5/5/4/-).
The later ships basically loose a point of main battery and torpedoes in return for a point of AA, ASW, and the Sub Hunter ability.
When we get to the Gleaves class, they essentially have the exact same stats, with Bristol being the first ship of the new configuration.
Last edited by Blackeagle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:45 pm |
|
|
|
